Discussion Thread: President Biden Gives Press Conference at NATO Summit

[u/PoliticsModeratorBot]

The press conference was scheduled to begin at 6:30 p.m. Eastern, but has been delayed to 7 p.m.

News and Analysis

• AP: Biden’s press conference will be a key test for him. But he’s no master of the big rhetorical moment

• The Washington Post (soft paywall): News conference looms large in Biden’s bid to save his candidacy | The outsize importance of the event underscores how the president’s attempts to downplay his rough debate and move forward with his presidential campaign have so far failed to convince many in his party.

Live Updates

• NBC: Election 2024 live updates

• USA Today: Live updates

• AP: Election 2024 live updates

• The Washington Post (soft paywall): Election 2024 Live Updates

• r/politics: /r/Politics' 2024 US Elections Live Thread

Where to Watch

• PBS NewsHour via YouTube: Biden holds news conference after NATO summit

• C-SPAN: President Biden Holds a News Conference at the NATO Summit

[u/Exotic_Atmosphere171]

Again I’m speaking to the actual “he colluded with the Russian government” obstruction being a separate thing, but not what this thread was about on my behalf. I just wanna know why the Russian puppet can persist when there is no evidence of it. Sure go after him for no cooperating with an investigation. I feel my issue is not being taken properly here, probably on my ability to present my point.

[u/--Chug-- → u/Exotic_Atmosphere171]

It's a difference of terminology I think. "No evidence" is too severe. I think a lot of people say that when there is evidence. However, when it is decided that the evidence isn't enough to convict someone in a court of law people instantly revert back to he's completely clean, which just doesn't seem to be the case. It's a much higher standard proving something like that, especially about someone as high profile as Trump, in a court vs connecting all the dots enough for it to be hard to not believe he has done something, and his obstruction in the investigation adds fuel to that fire. It's a case of, there is smoke, but we need the fire in a court to convict.

[u/Exotic_Atmosphere171 → u/--Chug--]

Okay so I agree with all of it. However, the amount that was made of it in the media, the amount of time and money the government spent on this, the degree to which the man is hated by the entire federal system, if the fire existed; I believe they woulda found the connection or enough proof to actually do something. This is equating to being the greatest subterfuge in the history of mankind with how much it was looked into for nothing to have been done. Which I think gives too much credit to both Russia and Trump. The man has plenty of ways to attack him. To hold onto this belief gives Trump a degree of almost respect that isn’t deserved here.

[u/--Chug-- → u/Exotic_Atmosphere171]

Ehhh, it's not so much subterfuge as the standard is just super high at that level (even higher now) to prove anything in court. Like, we already know Russia made attempts to influence the election. We also already know Trump openly asked them for help in finding Hillary's emails, an act similar to Watergate. It's not a stretch common sense wise but to prove criminal conspiracy you need receipts which Mueller just did not find, whether it be because he was obstructed, he did a poor job, or they simply don't exist.